Talk:Sword of Gryffindor
If Voldemort had made this into a Horcrux, would he technically be forever immortal since the sword cannot be destroyed? 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ::The sword cannot be destroyed? Seth Cooper 17:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC) :::The sword as been stated to be indestructible, one can only imagine a way to destroy it if it would be turned into a Horcrux (which would give additional magic protection). ::::It's never specifically stated that the sword is indestructible, only that it "imbibes only that which makes it stronger." Although, Hagrid does at one point refer to a Goblin-made battle helmet as "indestructible", but it's hard to say if he meant it literally. - Nick O'Demus 21:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) The Name on the sword Griphook claims that Godric stole the sword from a goblin leader, but it is inscribed with his name, if the sword never has to be sharpened, i assume you cannnot engrave the blade after it is finished being made, would that not prove it was made for Godric Mando Warrior 16:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC) :The whole issue of the Goblins' perspective of ownership is that the maker is the rightful owner, not the buyer, even if it was made just for them. Even though the sword was made for Gryffindor, the Goblins believe it should have either been returned after he died or further payments should have been made every time it was passed down. - Nick O'Demus 21:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I knew that, i was just wondering why griphook claimed it was stolen from goblins, or did he think it was stealing to pass it on without payment? Mando Warrior 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Continuity So I reread the Deathly Hollows last night. Can someone please explain the issue of how the sword went from Griphook's possession after the Gringotts break-in to Neville's possession during the Battle of Hogwarts? Italianajt 19:55, January 20, 2010 (UTC) :In the second book harry is able to get the sword out of the sorting hat because a true griffendor who has real need for it can pull the sword out of the hat. At the end of the deathly hallows, voldomort puts the sorting hat on neville's head and lit the hat on fire, neville being a true griffendor and in need of help was able to pull the sword out of the hat also. ::Yes but is that specifically stated in the book? We can't just throw around statements and conjecture to the truth! Also, please be courteous and sign your name using the four tildes "~" or using the Signature button. Italianajt 22:06, January 20, 2010 (UTC) Avada Kedava If Avada kedava can destroy hocruxes beeing the powerful curse it is, could it destroy a hocrux version of godrics sword? 1) If the sword isindestructible because it is goblin made, could the killing curse beeing a killing curse kill the fragment of lord voldemorts soul because of it's very nature? If the sword was hit by avada kedava would it gain the curses leathal power? Dose it even matter if a hoxrcux is destroyed for the soul inside to die? Is Harry's intact body with no real signs of fatal damage proof a soul fragment can be destroyed with out destroying the hocrux it's self? Is Harry beeing hit by the curse second time, prroof that avada kedava has the power to destroy soul fragments of the hocruxes? 2)Beeing made into a hocrux has the sword been given it's power? Would that mean only avada kedavra could destroy the soul fragment? could the sword then only be destroyed by voldemorts death or would it be a double hocrux? What if it is both indescructible by goblin hand and it's existance acts as a double hocrux meaning only it's destruction would kill voldemort meaning voldemort is 100% imortal? Where to buy a replica of the sword? I found the best price to be at website called blujay market place. Its a really acurate replica at a lot lower price than Ive seen anywhere else. Here is a link. http://www.blujay.com/?page=ad&adid=3770917&cat=7070000 Wizard on Gryffindor's sword In the sword used in the films, there appears to be a bearded wizard holding some manner of scroll carved into the hilt. Could it be Godric Gryffindor? --Parodist 20:00, July 9, 2011 (UTC) I would say that is very possible. Why should there be a another wizard carved into? It is his sword and this wizard looks humanly and not like a goblin. So it could not be the goblin who has manufactured the sword. Harry granger 21:25, July 9, 2011 (UTC) :The beard and the stature also ressemble Godric a lot so it is highly possible yes. --Gojita 20:28, July 10, 2011 (UTC)Gojita Article name Is there a reason we're using "Godric Gryffindor's Sword" and not "Sword of Gryffindor"? ProfessorTofty (talk) 12:38, October 31, 2012 (UTC) :I tried to move it but was told an admin would have to due to an article of that name existing. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:41, December 29, 2012 (UTC) :: I moved it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:16, January 16, 2013 (UTC) Dumbledore's Will and the Sword It has been heavily speculated that Dumbledore included the Sword in his will to hint to Harry that he would need it to destroy horcruxes. If this is the case, it means that Dumbledore DID NOT plan on telling Harry that it could do so while Dumbledore was alive...This is utterly confusing to me. The only explanation I can fathom is that Dumbledore wanted to give it to Harry only at the right time, so that Lord Voldemort and the Ministry couldn't find out that the one in their possession was a fake. Is there a better answer? UpToNoGood (talk) 20:42, August 6, 2013 (UTC)UpToNoGood Source for how Sword of Gryffindor left the custody of Griphook? In the article on the Sword of Gryffindor, it states "But even after he took the real sword, the news of Harry, Ron and Hermione's break-in of Gringotts got to Voldemort, the Dark Lord fired Killing Curses at the Gringotts personnel and even Griphook himself. The sword vanished from Griphook's hand." I could not find any passage in the text mentioning Griphook after the breakin of Gringotts. I cannot find any passage mentioning the Sword again until the Battle of Hogwarts, where Neville obtains it from the Sorting Hat. So what is the source for this information in the Wiki? Is this a movie-only thing? Is it that considered canonical? Ziggurism (talk) 15:13, August 29, 2017 (UTC) :Yes, this is from the film and should be cited as such. I would cite it myself, but I can't recall off the top of my head whether this happened in Part 1 or Part 2. Our canon policy allows for mentioning events from the films, so long as they are properly cited and merely add to, rather than contradict, the books' events. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 18:13, August 29, 2017 (UTC) ::It's from Part 2 (Part 1 ends just after Dobby's burial, the Gringotts break-in doesn't happen till the begining of Part 2). I'll go ahead and ref it. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 21:01, August 29, 2017 (UTC) :::Thanks guys. So the book, via Griphook, puts forth the theory that Godric Gryffindor actually stole the sword from a goblin, and it should rightfully go back to the goblins. Alternatively, some Weasley (Bill?) advises that goblins have different notions of ownership, if a wizard purchases something from a goblin, it should revert to them on his death, rather than remain with wizard descendants in perpetuity. The fact that the sword left the goblins and returned to the sorting hat suggests that we are to disregard the accusations and understand that Godric Gryffindor was somehow the "true" owner of the sword. Right? Ziggurism (talk) 14:38, August 30, 2017 (UTC)